Saturday, 5 July 2014

Deputy Susan Pinel (Women in Politics 2)

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where it became apparent that St Clement Deputy Susan Pinel had not submitted a single proposition/amendment to proposition/written, or oral question to the States Assembly since being elected in 2011. Yet was a serial guest (in an election year) on BBC State Radio and chosen, as a guest, to be a voice for women in politics.

Last Monday the unelected, unaccountable, Speaker of the House and Deputy Bailiff (Chief Judge) William Bailhache attempted to silence dissent by cutting questions down to four minutes rather than the agreed ten minutes (per question). 

The Parliament met purposely a day early in order to accommodate question time where there were only nine oral questions submitted, none (as usual) submitted by Deputy Pinel. 

If each question had of reached its maximum allotted time it would have taken ninety minutes, which is thirty minutes short of the allocated time for Oral Questions, yet William Bailhache wanted to curtail this to 36 minutes. Could this have anything to do with Diane Abbott being in the Public Gallery and some uncomfortable truths getting exposed?

Thankfully Deputy Montfort Tadier, member of Jersey's latest Political Party REFORM JERSEY objected to this disgraceful attempt on silencing questions by the unelected unaccountable Deputy Bailiff and proposed that the full amount of allotted time, provided for by Standing Orders, be allowed. This was put to a vote (Hansard below) where Deputy Tadier's proposal was narrowly accepted twenty one in favour and twenty against.

One of those twenty politicians who wanted question time curtailed to less than 50% was the very same politician who has not submitted a single Written, or Oral, question of her own since her election in 2011 Deputy of St Clement Susan Pinel.


MONDAY, 30th JUNE 2014

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.


1.2 Welcome to His Excellency The Lieutenant Governor

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, first, as usual, I am very pleased to welcome His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of you all.  [Approbation]

1.2 Welcome to Distinguished Visitor – Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am also very pleased to acknowledge in the public gallery the Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, very welcome to watch our proceedings for as long as she can bear it. [Laughter]  [Approbation]  Members will be aware that we have a very long Order Paper.  A couple of propositions have been withdrawn or delayed, but I thought I would share some statistics with you in advance of our sitting.  We have this afternoon plus 6 days, so that is 39 hours from tomorrow, and there are 48 propositions now to be debated.  Four of them are amendments to the proposer’s proposition, so if the proposition is proposed as amended we are left with 44.  If the average time for debate of a proposition is an hour, we will be 5 hours short.  A more practical approach might be to accept that there are some controversial debates, and Members will forgive me for saying that there appears there are several potentials for that.  If we had 3 such debates, taking the best part of a day each, that would take some 19.5 hours from our bank of 39.  It would leave 20 hours for 41 propositions.  Assume for a moment, if you will bear with me, that 12 of those are straightforward and take a quarter of an hour each, that would be 3 hours from the bank and you are left with 17 hours and 29 propositions, roughly 35 minutes each.  I would suggest that obviously will not be enough.  It would suggest also, therefore, that the longer debates may have to be curtailed.  Now, there is no point today in asking why we are in this position.  The fact is that we are and the questions and the debates will need to be managed if we are going to get anywhere near finishing the business bearing in mind that the Order Paper for the next sitting looks as bad for length, if not worse, than the present one.  I think there are these consequences.  The first is this.  If possible, we should try to get through questions and one or more propositions this afternoon.  I do not, therefore, expect to allow more than 4 minutes per question.  Standing Orders say that the purpose of Question Time is to get factual answers.  Ministers should in particular please curtail their answers to giving factual responses to the questions as concisely as possible.  Questioners should focus on what information they want to extract, not on what message they want to deliver.  Secondly, Standing Orders on the content of speeches will, I hope, be strictly enforced for relevance and repetition.  Repetitive speeches are not necessary and we do not have time for irrelevant ones.  I expect to approach the debates by being reasonably accommodating with repetitive material during the first 4 speeches on each side of the debate.  Thereafter, Members can expect to be pulled up by the Chair unless they have something new to say.  I choose 4 because some lawyers have been heard to say that judges need to be told something at least 4 times [Laughter] before you can be sure that they have understood the point. Although that is quite wrong [Laughter], I will adopt that principle this week.  Thirdly, Members should ask themselves before they get up whether they have anything valuable to contribute to the debate.  Sometimes we have heard Members start with a conversational statement like: “I am not sure what I think about this proposition.”  Well, if I may say so, if you not sure, stay seated.  Almost certainly one of your colleagues will not suffer from the same self-doubt and by the time he or she has finished that speech you may be closer to knowing what you think.  Finally, almost certainly, I will cause irritation, annoyance and disquiet to Members over the course of the next 3 days while I am presiding.  Sometimes I am bound to make a wrong call or a harsh call.  I would like to apologise for that in advance and I ask Members to agree to keep their eyes fixed firmly on the wider picture in the management of this very long order of business, both for this sitting and the next one.  [Approbation]


2. Written Questions

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:
May I ask a point of procedure and possibly a point of order?  While I appreciate your direction and I also agree we need to act expediently, it seems to me, though, slightly unfair that Question Time should be penalised because at the last sitting we agreed to meet a day early to get through Question Time.  We did not agree to move Public Business to a day early. Also, given the fact that certain Members are not here who might have been wishing to partake in even some of the less important debates, I think it should be put to a vote so that the proposition should be we carry on to questions until they are finished.
I imagine we will still have time left over anyway, and then if there is time at the end of that we proceed with Public Business as suggested.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Well, I have given an indication of the way I propose to do it, but ultimately I am in the hands of the Assembly.  If you wish to make that proposition you can make it.  Is it seconded?  [Seconded]  I take it Members do not wish a debate on it.  Those Members in favour of adopting that ... the appel is called for.  The proposition from Deputy Tadier is that we allow, if necessary, the full amount of time provided for by Standing Orders on Question Time.
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:
I do not understand the voting.  What are we voting on?
The Deputy Bailiff:
The proposition from Deputy Tadier is that ... you missed the earlier section.  Senator Ozouf, for your benefit I shall say that I had given an indication that I was proposing to allow 4 minutes per question in order that we could get on to the substantive propositions in good time this afternoon.
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:
Sorry, I was here and I did listen to it.  I just did not understand the question.
The Deputy Bailiff:
Oh, I see.  The proposal from Deputy Tadier is that we allow up to the full amount of time provided for by Standing Orders for questions.
POUR: 21
Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator B.I. Le Marquand
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Clement
Senator A. Breckon
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. John
Senator I.J. Gorst
Connétable of St. Brelade
Senator P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Martin
Connétable of Trinity
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Connétable of St. Ouen
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Connétable of Grouville
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)
Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy of  St. John
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)
Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)



  1. Susie Pinel is straight out of the Ann Dupre mold who will ignore her parishioners and pick up £40k just for nodding her head for the establishment. Well done Monty for not allowing William Bellyache shut down debate.

  2. Deputy Pinel does a lot of work behind the scenes that the public don't get so see and hear about. Just because you don't see the work she is doing doesn't mean she isn't doing any.

    1. That being the case then she should have got a job with MI5. They do things in secret, politicians are supposed to let the public know what they are(n't) so we know whether to vote for them or not.

    2. How do you know she didn't?


  3. As you once wrote in a post Deputy Pinel is a perfect example of the 'I'm a Jersey politician - keep me in here' syndrome I.e. States Members who do nothing to ensure they don't risk upsetting anyone and thus survive. A bit like Senator Paul Routier who has turned this in to an art form over 20 years. Indeed, Pinel will likely be the next Social Security Minister precisely because she knows next to nothing about the department and like the last two probably cares even less about the elderly and poor whose lives it impacts upon?

    1. Trevor.

      The "I'm a Jersey Politician Keep me in here" Blog was exposing the silence of Deputy Kevin Lewis when he could have (should have) blown the tripe spouted by disgraced former SIO Mick Gradwell, regurgitated by the State Media, clean out the water.

      The Blog can be read HERE.

  4. Probably the biggest aspect of this post however is the fact that an unelected judge felt so cocky that he could happily attempt to breach Standing. Orders to try and thwart the democratic process by cutting down the time belonging to elected representatives just because he felt like it. Or more likely because a backbencher was once again highlighting how. Crown Officers etc can make the law up as they see fit and even abuse Articles of the ECHR. Shameful quite frankly.

  5. Here is an affidavit by the Former Chief of Police - in which the then Police Chief recounts an exchange with the judge, current Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache: -

    You may wish to make a hyperlink to assist your readers.

    The posting takes as a title words stated to Police Chief Graham Power by William Bailhache, after William Bailhache had attempted - and failed - to coerce the Police Chief into dropping an investigation into planning corruption: - "So be it!"

    According to what is the sworn testimony of the former Police Chief - he was then unlawfully suspended a few days later.

    At that time, William Bailhache was Jersey Attorney General - head of the Law Officers' Department - and sole prosecuting authority in Jersey.

    He was later promoted to the post of "Deputy Bailiff" - and it has more latterly been announced he is to be promoted to the post of "Bailiff".

    The Jersey posts of Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff, and Bailiff - are all entirely UK appointments - and are thus not accountable to the public of Jersey. To be more precise yet - the posts are Monarch appointments. It wouldn't be truly accurate to say "Crown" appointments - because that would imply they are "Crown appointments" - in the same manner that, say, UK judges are "Crown appointments".

    For in the case of the "Crown Dependencies" - the Monarch still exercises direct, feudal power.

    So it is that Her Majesty's appointments in Jersey - are Her's - She makes the decision - to grant Her power and authority to Her favoured post-holders via the conferral of Her "Letters Patent".

    So - when we observe that an un-elected - un-accountable - functionary - such as William Bailhache - tries to constrain Jersey democracy - and when we observe the fact that there is published - un-answered and undenied - sworn - testimony from a former Police Chief to the effect that William Bailhache tried to unlawfully coerce him - what - to be fully precise - we are observing is the true attitude and judgment of the Queen towards us - and the expression of Her power.

    Her Majesty has - in Her ever-lasting Glory and Wisdom - decided that the conduct of William Bailhache is what we peons require.

    I just thought Her Majesty would like that made clear, to Her Loyal Subjects.

    And, well - who could ever have the effrontery to question Her judgment and ancient Power?

    I mean, if anyone did anything so despicable, well, the Jersey & London authorities might have to contemplate adopting extraordinary measures.

    Oh, you know - most unlikely things - such as rushing in an up-date to the Treason law - even though the existing arrangement has sufficed perfectly well for 800 years.


    1. SS, rather than write all this angry stuff over and over again when are you actually going to do something with it?
      Or maybe its time to admit that nobody takes your seriously anymore?

    2. Fingering the Jersey Nazi Party7 July 2014 at 12:38

      If it is still true then it is quite correct to state again that the Batenburg family has ultimate sway over it's subjects on this island.

      The Treason Law has presumably been updated in order that it can be used, or mis-used. Don't you think?

    3. § 5.7.6 on page 265 of the Operation Haven (Wiltshire Police) report makes it quite clear that the states of Jersey police were being politically restrained by the Attorney General William Bailhache, whom is quoted as saying "There should be no further arrests without specific written advice from the Law Officers".


      5.7.6 He continues ‘following the meeting with the Attorney General I had a face to face discussion in my office with Lenny HARPER about the media release… I told him that nevertheless his actions had created something of a crisis which I would now have to manage. I instructed him as follows and later confirmed what I had said by e-mail. He should submit a written duty report on the incident; There should be no further arrests without specific written advice from the Law Officers; All relevant press statements will be cleared with the Law Officers before release’. If correct, this account paints a picture of more positive and intrusive supervision which had been lacking in Operation Rectangle, in our view.

      End Quote.

      In the Operation Haven report, one may also observe that page 341 ends with Policy Book Entry dated '16 May 2008' and on page 342 begins with Policy Book Entry dated '12 August 2008', in turning from one page to the next of this chronological order, June and July seem to be missing...

      It seems it is very strange that these two months have been omitted from the Policy Book entries in appendix 3 of the Operation Haven report, especially knowing that this was the same time that Attorney General William Bailhache was attempting to "manage" the "crisis" using the Law Officers.


      "There should be no further arrests without specific written advice from the Law Officers; All relevant press statements will be cleared with the Law Officers before release’."

      A shrewd DCO Harper would have almost certainly made Policy Book entries to protect both himself and his fellow investigating officers in response to the direct interventions of the Attorney General William Bailhache and the Law Officers during June and July shortly before he retired in August.

      Only DCO Lenny Harper can tell you if he made entries into the Police Policy Book during June and July 2008 before his retirement in August 2008.

  6. So you don't like Susie Pinel.
    Who are you trying to pave the way for her place then?

    1. I have three monkeys here that wouldn't mind to job share for Deputy of St Clement on zero-hour contracts .

  7. It is also worth noting that during the Deputy Bailiff's attempt to stifle decent/debate (Hansard above) there was a problem with the audio equipment at the States Assembly. The above Hansard, and more, WAS NOT broadcast on State Radio.

    1. Who operates the Hansard recording equipment? Is Hansard ever audited, in the sense of checking that such omissions are not a frequent occurrence?

  8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) and Senator A. Breckon voted CONTRE, what on earth is wrong with them have they become owned. The rest are the usual line up of puppets lead by the usual establishment names.

    1. Puppets that get voted in by the Public.
      Obviously against democracy then.

    2. Neither is standing for re-election - I suspect they just want to get the hell out.

      Bill Bailhache has a point: it's a mad schedule to operate to. But the way to fix the problem is not to curtail questioning but organise the States sittings better - something that big brother Phil's reform proposals simply don't look at.